I'm amazed at the number of cranes that can be seen rising above Washington, DC. I'm interested in the zoning which is allowing all this development to occur. I know there was a big rezoning change a could years back, but DC has been in its boom now for over a decade.

So what's the deal, DC members? Was there always a number of areas in the city that allowed 12+ floor buildings (prior to the 2016 zoning update) and the economic demand is pushing development to underdeveloped areas (like New York Ave near Gallaudet University)? Was there a series of minor zoning changes prior to 2016 that helped encourage all this development or was it always on the books?

I'm really curious. WMATA still sucks, but I love the feel and vibe of the city.

I'm a fan of density over height, and DC does this well. The height limit in DC forces developers to be more clever about the design of their buildings, maximizing light and views, efficiently using space, and being more welcoming to pedestrians that walk by. The thing that irks me about modern skyscrapers is that the base of the building may be entirely a lobby or other useless spaces. Developers/architects can hit their required square footage just by building up. I wish architects of modern skyscrapers would give their base or podium more thought. I'm wondering if there is something in zoning that can help.

1. DC has a downtown office market that's still growing. As the general world economy has shifted to requiring less office space, new office doesn't pencil in very many places. The DC region has a relatively strong office market, and downtown DC in particular is the strongest spot in it (suburbs except for Tysons are struggling).

2. DC's urban core is way too small for the region's population. Historically speaking, DC is smaller than cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore. There are fewer historic walkable neighborhoods to go around, and more demand for new people moving in. That results in more new construction, because there's less opportunity for the growth to be absorbed by existing rowhouses. And DC has more growth than most other highly urban cities.

3. The height limit pushes downtown growth outwards. Downtown DC is always expanding, because you can't go up. There are basically no undeveloped properties or above-ground parking lots in central DC. The land is already built, up to the max height allowed. But there's still demand for growth. So downtown constantly expands horizontally into adjacent neighborhoods, especially industrial ones that are comparatively easy to build in. The growth you see in NoMa (NY Ave near Gallaudet) and Navy Yard is essentially the outward expansion of downtown. It's growth that in other cities would be at least partially captured by replacing short downtown buildings with taller ones.

4. The height limit makes above-ground parking impractical. Most cities have surface parking lots and above-ground parking garages. With few exceptions, downtown DC and new construction anywhere in DC has neither. Most large buildings have underground parking lots, because the height limit puts above ground space at too much of a premium to be used for parking. This means the lower floors of DC's buildings are generally better than in most other cities. It also means DC buildings have fewer oversized lobbies than other cities (although DC has more than New York).

5. DC is comparatively willing/able to zone for meaningful transit oriented development. In most American cities, "zoning for TOD" means allowing 5 or 6 floors and maybe a little less parking. DC (including the suburbs) has been unusually willing to zone its Metro station areas for legitimate high density buildings. This is probably a result of the height limit plus the DC region's particular county-based governance structure, which puts zoning power at exactly the level of government small enough for regional competition (each county wants their office center), but large enough for elected officials to override NIMBYs (you can piss off a neighborhood if your jurisdiction has a million people, but not if it only has 50,000). Giving suburban zoning power to counties rather than cities is a big advantage, and results in more city-like zoning in the counties.

6. NoMa in particular benefits from an infill Metro station. You mention NoMa in particular. And yes it was upzoned a decade or two ago. The upzoning was possible because DC built an infill Metro station where there had not been one before. The Red Line used to speed through NoMa without stopping, but building a station there made it possible to upzone for TOD. The same thing is happening today in Alexandria at Potomac Yard, and along new Silver Line stations as they open in Virginia.

I can understand why anti-gentrification advocates might want to increase the height limit - denser downtown development means less displacement on the downtown fringes. Of course, right now such people hate developers, so they won't do anything that might help their sworn enemy.

I can also understand why developers might want to increase the height limit - bigger projects are more efficient to build, it would enable cheaper design features like above-ground parking podiums and allow them to make more money with less land.

Right now it seems like these two powerful forces are sort of in a stalemate that keeps the height limit untouched and preserves the status quo of an expanding downtown.

But from a planner's perspective - isn't the height limit working exactly as intended? New development is spread over a pretty large area. More and more parts of the city are becoming dense and walkable. Developers are building neighborhood-scale projects that often integrate new public space and even (minor) transit improvements, so it takes some of the burden off of government to provide these things. The only planning argument against this is that the city is now struggling to provide full-fledged transit to these newly developed areas. However, even with more intensity in the core, WMATA would still be struggling with severe capacity issues at places like Metro Center and Farragut. Arguably, their current plan of building a streetcar network to serve the downtown fringe is much cheaper than expanding subway stations and building whole new relief lines...

The height limit is federally-imposed. It could be overturned probably fairly easily, but DC local politicians are so afraid of what they believe would be the ensuing NIMBY backlash that when the issue came up a few years ago they asked Congress ***NOT*** to give DC authority to decide its own heights.

Right in the middle of a big push for DC statehood, too. It was a massive abdication of responsibility, and gave serious ammunition to the argument that DC doesn't deserve full home rule.

DC could just establish an area for high-rises like Paris' La Defense or London's Canary Wharf. Arlington would be the best place for it. In fact, would it harm Washington if they just reannex Arlington?

__________________There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

DC could just establish an area for high-rises like Paris' La Defense or London's Canary Wharf. Arlington would be the best place for it. In fact, would it harm Washington if they just reannex Arlington?

The effort to retrocede, or remove themselves from the District and rejoin Virginia, started in 1804 but became serious in the 1820s and 1830s. Thomas Jefferson had imposed an embargo on some commercial shipping that nearly destroyed Alexandria’s economy, Georgetown blocked an effort to extend the Cheseapeake and Ohio canal to its southern neighbor and “Alexandria wanted out of the ‘ruinous evil’ that was the District of the Columbia,” Pope writes.

But the real reason for retrocession might have been “shackled in the basement of the slave-trading operation on Duke Street” but largely unspoken in official transcripts, Pope writes. The slave trade was a major industry in Alexandria, and city fathers feared that Congress would outlaw it in the District, which is exactly what happened in the Compromise of 1850. By rejoining Virginia in 1846, Alexandria assured itself of another decade or so of the unfettered sale of humans beings.

Since, in 1846, Congress allowed the retrocession, one wonders if they couldn't revoke it. Politically that might be impossible. Constitutionally, one wonders.

Still, as a born and raised Washingtonian (spending my eariest years at 14th & Colorado Ave.) I know the height limit was intended to keep the Capitol dome a prominent landmark and has resulted in a fullfillment of L'Enfant's vision of Washington as a city in the 18th century French mode. One could wish some of the commercial architecture were better, but this native would not wish for high rises in the city itself. Arlington, whether part of DC or not, and Silver Spring are pretty good places for them.

Wow, thanks Cirrus. That was very helpful and answers many of the questions I had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm curious as to when (if at all) DC will do away with the height restrictions. At least in some parts of town.

As has been mentioned. Arlington, VA is probably the best bet for future skyscrapers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I can understand why anti-gentrification advocates might want to increase the height limit - denser downtown development means less displacement on the downtown fringes. Of course, right now such people hate developers, so they won't do anything that might help their sworn enemy.

This is logical, but NIMBYism and the anti-gentrifies don't use logic. It's really sad when I see the anti-gentrifies, who have a true passion of love for the community and their residents, end up blindly support policies that are either directly or indirectly causing gentrification.

Quote:

I can also understand why developers might want to increase the height limit - bigger projects are more efficient to build, it would enable cheaper design features like above-ground parking podiums and allow them to make more money with less land.

I have no doubt developers would love to increase the height limit. Even if it was upped by six or so floors, the demand for space is probably there to keep the parking underground and use the additional height allowance for residential/commercial sqft.

Personally, I wish more cities would just ban above ground parking facilities. Remove parking minimums in the zoning text and require it be surface or underground only. The market will determine how many below ground spots are needed and the appropriate rate for a space. Above ground parking has an impact of the pedestrian environmental, and parking minimums indirectly subsides car ownership by folks that don't drive.

Quote:

But from a planner's perspective - isn't the height limit working exactly as intended? New development is spread over a pretty large area. More and more parts of the city are becoming dense and walkable. Developers are building neighborhood-scale projects that often integrate new public space and even (minor) transit improvements, so it takes some of the burden off of government to provide these things. The only planning argument against this is that the city is now struggling to provide full-fledged transit to these newly developed areas. However, even with more intensity in the core, WMATA would still be struggling with severe capacity issues at places like Metro Center and Farragut. Arguably, their current plan of building a streetcar network to serve the downtown fringe is much cheaper than expanding subway stations and building whole new relief lines...

That would be my sense, too. The height limit has been beneficial to DC's development over the years. But I would be interested to hear from a planning perspective on this.

Quote:

One could wish some of the commercial architecture were better, but this native would not wish for high rises in the city itself. Arlington, whether part of DC or not, and Silver Spring are pretty good places for them.

I hear this a lot from DC folks, but personally I find the architecture for the new buildings in DC rather interesting. I think you guys are spoiled in that the rest of the country, it's not unusual to see new developments like this:

Well, based on what Pedestrian said, it could be a possibility. I think it would be good way for DC to expand beyond its political roots.

Plus, like he said, DC looks better as a mostly lowrise city. Gives it a European feel and shows how the US is a continuation of the Western tradition with the great monuments and government buildings at the center. Plus almost every major US has a skyline and except for NYC, Chicago, and a few others, all of the other skylines are unremarkable.

__________________There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Well, based on what Pedestrian said, it could be a possibility. I think it would be good way for DC to expand beyond its political roots.

Plus, like he said, DC looks better as a mostly lowrise city. Gives it a European feel and shows how the US is a continuation of the Western tradition. Plus almost every major US has a skyline and except for NYC, Chicago, and a few others, all of the other skylines are unremarkable.

It's not a possibility...

If there was political will, Congress could admit the Dominican Republic as the 51st State. It's theoretical Constitutional, but never going to happen, much like DC recededing (or whatever the word would be) Arlington from Virginia.

Well, based on what Pedestrian said, it could be a possibility. I think it would be good way for DC to expand beyond its political roots.

It would be a long drawn out court battle and VA would win. The federal government has no authority over existing state boundaries (states are sovereign)...other than create new states so VA would have to be willing to return Alexandria back to DC. MD/VA volunteered the land initially. Both sides agreed to retrocede the land back to VA...

Good comment Cirrus, but you forgot - DC loves to pat itself on the back for all the growth but much of it is because the federal government is based there. People can claim and stutter otherwise but numerous corporations have moved to the area to be close to the federal government. Not too mention all the direct federal jobs and endless contractors etc who suck on the government teat - as well as the insane and always growing defense industry. And yet, despite all of this incredible financial stimulus, African American incomes in the city are actually stagnant or decreasing while shooting thru the roof for whites and Asians. SMDH

It would be a long drawn out court battle and VA would win. The federal government has no authority over existing state boundaries (states are sovereign)...other than create new states so VA would have to be willing to return Alexandria back to DC. MD/VA volunteered the land initially. Both sides agreed to retrocede the land back to VA...

I'll repeat what I said: It's likely a political impossibility and Constitutionally dubious. So we don't disagree MUCH. You are right that the federal government has no authority over state boundaries with this single possible exception since this bit of Virginia actually WAS ceded to the Feds by Virginia as a result of a historical deal and then returned to it by the Federal government. Could that government take back their action returning it? That's for the lawyers.

A little history:

Quote:

On December 23, 1788, the Maryland General Assembly passed an act, allowing it to cede land for the federal district. The Virginia General Assembly followed suit on December 3, 1789. The signing of the federal Residence Act on July 16, 1790, mandated that the site for the permanent seat of government, "not exceeding ten miles square" (100 square miles), be located on the "river Potomack, at some place between the mouths of the Eastern-Branch and Connogochegue" . . . . (It) limited to the Maryland side of the Potomac River the location of land that commissioners appointed by the President could acquire for federal use.

The Residence Act authorized the President to select the actual location of the site. However, President George Washington wished to include the town of Alexandria, Virginia within the federal district . . . .

The U.S. Congress amended the Residence Act in 1791 to permit Alexandria's inclusion in the federal district. However, some members of Congress had recognized that Washington and his family owned property in and near Alexandria . . . . The amendment therefore contained a provision that prohibited the "erection of the public buildings otherwise than on the Maryland side of the river Potomac" . . . .

After a referendum, Alexandria County's citizens petitioned Congress and Virginia to return the area to Virginia. By an act of Congress on July 9, 1846, and with the approval of the Virginia General Assembly, the area south of the Potomac (39 square miles; 101 km²) was returned, or "retroceded," to Virginia effective in 1847.

So that's how DC was created and later modified and, as I said, I'll let the lawyers argue about whether any of the legislative acts, state or federal, could be undone. One point though--that it did take acts of the state legislatures for the land to cease being parts of Maryland and Virginia originally shows JManc is correct that the Feds couldn't just take it or any part of any other state, but having been given it once could make it unique.

Good comment Cirrus, but you forgot - DC loves to pat itself on the back for all the growth but much of it is because the federal government is based there. People can claim and stutter otherwise but numerous corporations have moved to the area to be close to the federal government. Not too mention all the direct federal jobs and endless contractors etc who suck on the government teat - as well as the insane and always growing defense industry. And yet, despite all of this incredible financial stimulus, African American incomes in the city are actually stagnant or decreasing while shooting thru the roof for whites and Asians. SMDH

Isn't one of the counties surrounding DC the wealthiest majority African American county in the nation?

This intro sounds like the type of argument coming from the anti-gentrifiers. A group not as bad as NIMBYs, but equally misguided. More growth is needed if there is a large segment of the population that is economically disenfranchised. Residents in the southwest corner of town should be petitioning city government for widespread rezoning to bring in the money, jobs and development that have revitalized many other segments of the city. Instead, why do I have the feeling the exact opposite occurs. Some folks rather just whine and point blame rather than develop a solution and force a difference.

Good comment Cirrus, but you forgot - DC loves to pat itself on the back for all the growth but much of it is because the federal government is based there. People can claim and stutter otherwise but numerous corporations have moved to the area to be close to the federal government. Not too mention all the direct federal jobs and endless contractors etc who suck on the government teat - as well as the insane and always growing defense industry. And yet, despite all of this incredible financial stimulus, African American incomes in the city are actually stagnant or decreasing while shooting thru the roof for whites and Asians. SMDH

That's a good point.

Normal economic fundamentals simply don't apply to the DC area for that reason. It wasn't even really affected by the Great Recession.

1. Being outside the District of Columbia, Arlington is not subject to DC's height limit. There are already tons of tall buildings in Arlington. It has been home to the DC-region's tallest office and residential buildings for decades. Its tallest buildings are currently about 400 feet tall.

2. Arlington already has about the same amount of office space as La Defense. They both have about 40 million square feet of office space. Arlington has a little more than La Defense if you include the Pentagon; La Defense has a little more if you don't. Arlington's office market is spread out, however, in TODs around 7 different Metro stations, and a bit elsewhere.

3. Arlington is unlikely to have buildings much taller than 400' any time soon. This is because although it's not subject to DC's height limit, it is subject to height limits imposed by the FAA as a result of National Airport, which is in Arlington and has flight paths very close to Arlington's two largest office nodes, Rosslyn and Crystal City. FAA height limits are very apparent looking at Crystal City, which has a midrise canopy skyline much like DC's. Rosslyn is further upstream along the flightpath and isn't as obviously affected (it's where Arlington's 400' buildings are), but it's still limited by the FAA.

4. Silver Spring and all other suburbs of DC have normal local zoning height limits. When I said DC area politicians have been successful in getting high density TODs built, that's true. But it's not unlimitedly true. There are still locally-imposed height limits everywhere, they're just higher. For example, Silver Spring's vary but are in the 200 foot range. These can be changed at any time and they are often changed, to revise the limits upwards, so they're not exactly a hard limit.

5. For the forseeable future, the tallest buildings will be in Tysons. Rosslyn has been the DC region's skyscraper champ for decades, but its crown is right now in the process of being taken away by Tysons. Tysons is further out and more suburban, but was recently upzoned when the Silver Line opened, and is being actively re-planned as a walkable TOD, just like Arlington was 40 years ago. Already a 470' building is topped out, and a 615' building is in the works.

So no, do not look to Arlington. Look to Tysons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eightball

DC loves to pat itself on the back for all the growth but much of it is because the federal government is based there.

Yes, and much of the Silicon Valley's success is because of Stanford's tech school. And much of New York's success is because of finance. I don't know why it's supposed to be some kind of "but" insight that cities have anchor industries. Nobody in DC is under any misconception that the federal government's presence is not highly tied to the city's success.